About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
cyberharassment. the fbi tried to determine if the e-mails with petraeus' account to broadwell had-exchanged through regular e-mail exchanges or had been hawked. fbi agents believe there were no criminal charge to be brought or security implications to the case. this despite that broadwell had some classified information and seemed to be releasing information on the benghazi attack. >> i don't know if a lot of you had heard this, but the c.i.a. had taken a couple of libyan militia members prisoner and they think the attack on the on the the consulate was to get these prisoners back. >> peter king who heads the homeland security committee told nbc he had doubts that the probe ever should have happened. >> i don't know how this rises to the level of an fbi investigation. >> and senator dianne feinstein told nbc she wanted to know why the intelligence committee that she chairs weren't alerted about the ongoing investigations while some were. >> an fbi agent took it upon him to go to members of the house and tell them, and this was outside of the general line of the information. that's
-mails that he exchanged with the tampa temptress, jill kelly. she started the fbi investigation of petraeus in the first place. why are the military generals acting so much like politicians? well, we'll talk about that and all kinds of other issues but first, we get the latest. today's current news update, lisa ferguson's got it out in los angeles. good morning. >> hey bill, good morning everyone. as bill mentioned this petraeus story seems to be getting more complex by the minute. we'll give you more information here because we are continuing to learn more about this whole scandal involving now former c.i.a. director david petraeus and his extramarital affair with the author of his biography paula broadwell. another american is now getting caught up in the whole thing and that is the top commander in afghanistan, general john allen. turns out the pentagon is now investigating him as well for sending inappropriate e-mails to jill kelly. now, if you remember from yesterday, kelly is the same woman who sparked this whol
of the homeland security committee has questions. >> it just doesn't add up that the f.b.i. would be carrying on this type of investigation without bringing it to the president or the highest levels of the white house. >> it doesn't seem to be partisan. senator dianne feinstein in charge of the senate intelligence committee is curious why she found out something like this from media irinquiries and because it could affect national security, pertinent lawmakers should have known in advance. a woman named jane kelly was being harassed by email and brought them into the f.b.i. office. they looked into the emails and found a relationship between broadwell and petraeus. no breach of national security, even though petraeus was advised to resign. we'll be back with more after the break. crazy monday. we'll see you on the other side. ♪ stay tuned for the answer. (vo) brought to you by metlife. [ forsythe ] we don't just come up here for the view up in alaska. it's the cleanest, clearest water. we find the best sweetest crab for red lobster that we can find. [ male announcer ] hurry in to
was that he wants more of the investigation -- the information to come out. the fbi agents who had interviewed survivors of the attack. and he wants to know more information before he says he would be willing to elevate somebody who was involved in any part of this controversy. i do think that susan rice is not really the one that i am personally most concerned about. just as a. >> reporter: trying to find out the truth. the state department itself and susan rice is part of it but not really involved in deciding why they didn't get adequate security who did what in terms of trying to help the people who were pinned down. that seems to be more of a c.i.a. question. those are the people i really want to find out more about. >> eliot: i think that's exactly right. there are a myriad of legitimate questions that should be asked about the information through the decision making but it seems to me susan rice is the least informed, least interesting party here and that's why trying to take her hostage in effect at a moment wher
said that the talking points have been changed by the fbi because of an on-going criminal investigation. and they were very troubled by this because of course we had already been told it was the dni that changed them. then they got a call at 4:00 p.m. from the c.i.a., actually, no it wasn't. it was us. we changed them. so then they're going what the bleep is going on? they can't get their act straight. and yet the focus of their rage when they came out from the meeting was susan rice, not michael morrell. >> bill: right. so susan rice, first of all not responsible for security at consulates or embassies around the country. number two, she's not the one who wrote those intelligence reports or provided the material for the intelligence report that she -- the findings of which she simply read or reported on. if the anger should be directed toward anybody it should be against the c.i.a. or the fbi or whoever did not have all of the facts right. but jon huntsman, the one republican making any sense on this issue
.i.a. or the fbi, one or the other deleted any reference to possible terrorist activity at the time because they didn't want to trigger or let people know that's what they were looking into but again she's not the one that wrote the talking points or edited the talking points. she also said at the time look, these may not prove to be true down the road but this is what we've got so far. >> that's right. my impression of this is yours which is that she read from prepared talking points and delivered messages that had been vetted and developed by the intelligence community in what was a chaotic and rapidly developing situation. it became clear fairly quickly that the attack on the benghazi consulate was a premeditated effort by terrorists. the president used the word terrorist actions the next day. and this isn't something -- this isn't iran-contra. this wasn't concealed for six months or a year. there wasn't complete disavow of any knowledge. this was the intelligence community saying we shouldn't be out there publicly in the fi
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)